Michael Ring
Ceist:1 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will reconsider her adjustment to the back to education allowance and allow payment to continue for the summer months. [8531/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. Priority Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Willie Penrose
Ceist:2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for the recent changes to the back to education allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8533/03]
Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The back to education allowance scheme is a second chance educational scheme designed to assist unemployed people and other disadvantaged groups who are being held back in their search for employment by a lack of qualifications.
A review of the basic purpose underlying my Department's back to education provisions was carried out recently. In the light of this and of the expenditure constraints facing us this year, the scheme has been revised. In framing proposals to change elements of the BTEA scheme I was conscious of the need to ensure that payments were focused on those who most need training or qualifications in order to gain a foothold in the labour market. In line with this aim, payments under the scheme for the summer period have been discontinued, as people who had been previously unemployed often do find work opportunities either at home or abroad during the summer months. Of course, participants in the scheme who fail to find employment during the summer may be entitled to an unemployment payment, subject to satisfying the usual qualifying conditions.
Regarding changes in the scheme as it relates to postgraduates, I am satisfied that people in possession of a third level qualification have already achieved a good level of academic attainment, which should impact positively on their employment prospects. In a time of financial constraint I want to ensure that supports are directed to those with more pressing needs. However, I will ask my officials to liaise with the relevant bodies to identify specific post-graduate courses, such as the H. Dip, which add significantly to a person's employability and to which the back to education allowance should continue to apply.
I am satisfied that the new arrangements will ensure that the back to education scheme continues to provide support to those people who are most distant from the labour market and whose need is greatest.
How can the Minister change the rules in the middle of the scheme when people have already entered into a contract with the Department? I know the Minister will save about €10 million on the scheme but it is yet another cutback in addition to the cutbacks we have already seen in the FÁS back to work scheme. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, was in the Minister's Department at one time and he introduced the "dirty dozen" cuts. This Minister has now brought in 11 "dirty" cuts and has nearly reached a dozen. In recent months, her Department has been making one cutback after another but it is wrong to do that to people. Is it fair for a Department to break a contract that someone has entered into? The affected people will have to go to social welfare offices in mid-summer when they will be asked to produce three or four letters. When they bring them in they will be told that they are still not looking for work, so they will have to obtain money from their community welfare officer. Such people are already trying to better themselves through education and they are trying to get off social welfare. If they obtain the necessary education they will not be reliant on the social welfare system. The system is wrong and the Minister should change it immediately. We should go back to the old arrangement whereby such people were paid during the summer months. The new plan represents a further cutback by the Minister's Department, which is mean and unfair. The Government should revert to the previous payment system.
We can all be named something in the House and I certainly do not intend to rise to what the Deputy opposite has said about me. Perhaps his mathematics are not as good as those of other Members, however, when one considers the increase of €530 million in this year's budget package, as well as an increase in recent years of €1.2 billion in one of the largest departmental budgets. That is not a cutback.
This is a cutback.
I wish to emphasise that those who were already in the scheme will not be affected, in particular with regard to the postgraduate issue. It is important to say that because there has been some misinformation. People on postgraduate programmes who are in the scheme will remain in the postgraduate programme. Economic constraints have meant that I have had to re-evaluate some of the priorities in the Department. As I said in my reply, I have revised and reviewed the back to education allowance scheme. The scheme is not means tested once one is in it. A person's eligibility criteria are based on unemployment, lone parent and many other allowances. Those who were studying were also getting the allowance every week and, in the main, people were also working.
In order that people will not be economically disadvantaged, if they are not in a position to find work in the summer they will revert back to their existing payment, which was their eligibility criterion in the first place. As there will be very few changes in circumstances, I would assume that over a two to three-year period, people will revert to what they will be eligible for.
They will be told they are not looking for work and it will be an appeal situation.
Given that, in the main, the university summer period lasts for four months, people will be entitled to apply for the assistance they may need, but it is to be hoped and is anticipated that they will find employment in the summer months and revert to the back to education allowance to complete their relevant studies.
There is a groundswell of anger directed against this cutback, which is perceived as an insidious attack on vulnerable people. Was the rationale of the back to education allowance scheme not to assist people who had worked for 26 weeks or more to get a foothold in the labour force by improving their skills and qualifications? For many people this represented an opportunity to rupture a cycle of unemployment they might have been in for a long period and get back to work. Why has the Minister changed a winning formula? Why has the application of the scheme been curtailed? It is just another exercise in implementing another cutback by stealth – an attack on vulnerable people. It is particularly insidious, given that many people's plans have been torpedoed in mid-stream due to the curtailment of payments during holiday periods and the fact that there are no allowances to cover postgraduate courses.
The Minister may empathise with someone in the following circumstances: a married woman with two children who is studying as a second-year arts degree student at NUI, and is currently in receipt of the back to education allowance. She now wants to break out of that cycle by studying for the H.Dip. in Education, but will she be covered for that higher diploma course? This question is of critical importance to people in such circumstances. Those are the type of technical problems that arise when the Minister takes a swipe at the back to education allowance scheme. The Minister should understand this problem. How much is being saved by this measly cut? She is saving nothing in real terms yet it is impacting adversely upon a huge number of mature college students, including single parents on low incomes. Will such people be allowed to proceed with their education plans or will the cutbacks defeat the whole purpose of the scheme? Approximately 6,800 people qualified for the scheme this year. This mean and niggardly cut will only save a few euros, yet it represents a severe imposition and an unwarranted impediment for those who are trying to improve their lot. On their behalf, I appeal to the Minister to reverse this cutback.
The purpose of the back to education allowance scheme was to provide second-chance education. That will still remain, be it a second-level qualification, such as the leaving certificate, or a primary degree. However, the Deputy has raised another issue. Perhaps the Deputy did not hear my response. I said that I will ask my officials, which I have done, to liaise with the relevant bodies to identify specific postgraduate courses such as the H.Dip, which add significantly to a person's employability, to which the back to education allowance should continue to apply. In other words, if one wants to be a teacher, one needs a H.Dip. If there are other specific cases the Deputy wishes to raise with me, I will consider them.
I am not in a position to reverse the postgraduate scheme. We have been in a position to give people a second chance to help them to progress. The idea is to give them a second level education and, hopefully, they will move into a third level primary degree and at that stage use the skills they have acquired to move into the workplace. Most people who have a primary degree are able to do that because they have certification. In the context of one or two courses which we have to evaluate in consultation with other bodies, we will do that and revert to the Deputy.
Of the 6,470 people participating in the back to education scheme, how many of them are doing postgraduate courses? The fact that many people are getting money from community welfare officers is saving the Department money. When people bring letters into the Department they are not accepted. Department officials say there is work for these people, but that is not so. These people have to go through an appeals mechanism which in some cases have taken six to eight months or up to a year. Is this practice an excuse by the Department to save money?
I want to reinforce the point made by the Deputy. I ask the Minister to specify how much money is being saved by the application of this insidious cut – it is nothing more or nothing less. It is hitting the poorest of people, those who are marginalised and on a low income who have an opportunity to participate in education. Education is important in providing people with an opportunity to lift themselves up. I appeal to the Minister to return to the Minister for Finance with our support and secure the necessary money, be it €8 million or €10 million, to help these people.
Some 6,473 people participated in the back to work education scheme last year.
That is one fewer than was on it last week.
Did the person leave?
That was the number I got in reply to a parliamentary question last week.
The figure I have for those who participated in that scheme is 6,473. Some 1,505 people participated in second level, 4,968 people participated in third level and 650 people pursued a postgraduate qualification in the 2002-03 academic year at a cost of over €4 million per annum.
How much money is being saved?
Savings are savings. I have garnered from debate in the Seanad and in the House that there is a perception that a primary degree is no good, which I find disturbing. I do not believe that is true because otherwise one would require a postgraduate qualification to move into the marketplace. I do not agree that is the case. Few Members of this House have postgraduate qualifications and they have done quite well. The Department has given the people concerned what they need, which is a leaving certificate to move into a third level qualification certification.
These are questions on social welfare, not on education.
A primary degree is a gateway into employment for many of these people, which is what they wanted initially. In no way is that basic premise of the scheme being changed.